Talk:Son of man (disambiguation)

Son Of Man, argument below for Literal Interpretation
My name is Elliott Reitz, and I've written-here on this talk-page the pro son of man = Man's Child, which is dominant and argumentative on this page below (as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Son_of_man) (with edit attempts to the "Article" pages). That is the "Literal" point of view(POV) that Son of Man = computers. That was rejected here a few years ago. I sill hold this POV/opinion and find it interesting that when I google for ""Son Of Man" literal", it 1st links here to this talk page. I'm very glad that this content is still here (restores my hope in integrity of Wikipedia after loosing my arguments). I do feel satisfied that I did my best to offer the LITERAL interpretation. If there may become a more receptive moderation toward INCLUDING (not exhaulting) this POV via "disambiguation", I'd be glad to help summarize this into an new sub-article IMHO its overdue, though I've long ago given up offering it against the opposition to it. Sure wiki isn't about opinion but rather truthful information... so the question is where the line is, and that line includes the moderation of what fits the "narrative". I do hope that eventually "DISSAMBUATION" pages will separate "narratives" enough to be more inclusive (even if the header to a sub-page after disambiguation leads with the controvercial-warnings). Hope that helps! Elliott (74.106.18.34 and previously 74.111.4.108, and 74.111.7.85)

Literal, Man's child
It can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child. Also it exists as a philosophy. Sometimes expressed in science fiction where the computer becomes self aware and possibly integrates the worlds computers into itself. For example, Hal in 2001 Space oddesy, Skynet in Terminator 2 , I, Robot , and Son Of Man (a 1971 novel by Silverberg). IMHO it belongs there as Si Fi is a form of religion in and of itself and has certainly used and applied the LITERAL TRANSLATION of the phrase that goes clear back to the book of Daniel. If this section doesn't belong there then perhapse the dissambiguation can sort it out by either including it - or sepearating the "Son Of Man" page into a "Son of Man (religious)" and "Son Of Man (literal)" page? 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (continued)

With no reply and another deletion on the Son of Man page it seems time to place this content that is common sense to me on this page. The other page should be renamed to "Son of Man (religious)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well now the content just got wacked again. Trying again with less references - just the litteral words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems I can't create Son of man (religious) and move around the content as needed. Hopefully the talk pages are enough to create the proposed end-case results. Sadly though it seems less likely to happen. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the section I had added before I was opposed. That returns my edits to non. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of
"This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." is giving you problms? "Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." Thus removing the link to the article Son of Man is either confusion on your part or an attempt to make a WP:Point - a bad idea either way. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The part that's RELIGIOUS when 2 simple words say LITERALLY what they mean. I originally added the 'religion' part here as well as have tried to add the LITERAL interpretation both here and on the primary "son of man" page. SO OBVIOUSLY YOU"RE RELIGIOUS about it rather than showing an integrity about what the words mean. When I stated all this LITERAL interpretation suff the literal was at least part of the original page's introduction.  But now - its become an ORIGINAL WORK here rather than a truthful interpretation of words as confused by one of the worlds common RELIGIONS.  SHAME ON YOU FOR THAT.  I've tried to help the WIKI's credibility but rather than respect I've gotten abused for it - dissrespected and funny how smart people are seen as crazy by people who either cant or WON'T understand, especially when their money is at stake. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Noticing how all the other links below the "People" section are secular based upon the LITTERAL translation of the 2 words, I think I've repaired it here. As well as adding a better titled "literal" reference to the concpet on the primary page. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There were no references for the supposed literal meaning, and even if there had been, that content would still not belong on a disambiguation page. If there's no article on that interpretation, it does not belong here. Huon (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I give up offering your WIKI any help there Huon. You seem more interested in justifying your bias than the truth of the information you claim to represent. You erase ALL my contributions and act like you're arn't destructive. I think you've ruined this topic - and won't bother referencing this page. TransAlchemy has a better source on the topic elsewhere. 74.111.4.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)